[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbox /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can get detailed, noise free and distortion free sound from any cheap microphones and mixers but what you don't get is the smooth balance between different channels of audios which mixers costing tens of thousands can achieve very beautifully.

Well, yeah, if we're talking about analog mixing equipment I'd agree, but even in high-end studios, most stuff is done in-the-box using digital consoles like Digidesign's ICON + ProTools|HD system. There are exceptions and good reasons to use analog equipment, but from the standpoint of cost and ease-of-use, digital is the way that most studios choose to go these days. In that sense, budget digital audio interfaces are not so far off from most of the expensive audio interfaces; the internal components are inexpensive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbox I don't understand this statement. Can you give me some examples regarding this statement and explain what you mean by professional signal path?

What I really meant by 'professional signal path' is the use of expensive equipment all the way through the chain. In some situations, a Shure SM58 is a better choice than a Neumann U87, yet the U87 is 25 times more expensive. I'll admit that I'm a fan of expensive stuff, but it's not essential for every situation.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbox /img/forum/go_quote.gif Microphones have little to do with SQ.

The microphone type and the placement of it relative to the room and the performer makes all the difference. If you don't get it right in the first step, you'll never be able to synthesize it later on in the process.

See ya
Steve

 

[rjp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by basic-chanel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Then how come I've heard things made with nothing more than a laptop in a bedroom that blow away music done in these high-end studios? Honestly, what worries me more than people listening to music on youtube (and I doubt that anyone does so for anything more than a preview) is people that feel you can not create well-produced music with anything other than an overpriced studio full of equipment that few can afford.

Indeed, I've heard audience recordings of live performances that were eye-poppingly good. Combine a good set of mics, good signal capture gear, and someone who cares, and the results can be simply amazing. Case in point: the recording I'm listening to now, of Mark Knopfler live in Charlotte, NC, in 24-bit/96 kHz FLAC.

Unfortunately, great mics have the same "sorry about your wallet" problem that great headphones have... maybe even more so. My eyes just about fell out of my skull when I saw what a matched pair of KM184s cost, and they aren't the most expensive microphones around by any means.

 

[analogbox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The microphone type and the placement of it relative to the room and the performer makes all the difference. If you don't get it right in the first step, you'll never be able to synthesize it later on in the process. See ya Steve

Right, but would you use your high end mic with your $100 hand held recorder? Probably no. It wouldn't matter how good your mike is unless rest of your recording setups are able to render it correctly. Otherwise, every recording engineers wouldn't need to invest in any recorders and signal processors, but need only to get a nice high end Neumann mike and some cheap recorders and they'll be all set for their careers. And unless you have your vocal sing to the microphone 10 ft. away, it wouldn't make any significant changes in terms of SQ whether you sing slightly from the right or left, or, 2 inches away or 3 inches away.

 

[analogbox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjp /img/forum/go_quote.gif Indeed, I've heard audience recordings of live performances that were eye-poppingly good. Combine a good set of mics, good signal capture gear, and someone who cares, and the results can be simply amazing. Case in point: the recording I'm listening to now, of Mark Knopfler live in Charlotte, NC, in 24-bit/96 kHz FLAC.

I was recently on a mission to find live recordings of Radiohead's concerts and found one that was recorded with H2-Zoom which looks to be a very nice hand held recorder based on all the positive reviews but yet I was greatly disappointed at how awful the clips sounded. They were muddy and sibilant, and the bass was just badly distorting. I later found the live clips from XM radio and found that it had much nicer overall sound which was quite listenable. It is possible that in your case the person who recorded it had a much nicer recorder than say H2-Zoom, but I doubt it will beat any professionally-controlled live recordings using professional set ups.

 

[analogbox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinitesymphony /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, yeah, if we're talking about analog mixing equipment I'd agree, but even in high-end studios, most stuff is done in-the-box using digital consoles like Digidesign's ICON + ProTools|HD system. There are exceptions and good reasons to use analog equipment, but from the standpoint of cost and ease-of-use, digital is the way that most studios choose to go these days. In that sense, budget digital audio interfaces are not so far off from most of the expensive audio interfaces; the internal components are inexpensive.

I agree. Now days, the analog studios are quickly diminishing and most studios are hopping on the digital wagon. But just for the sake of the argument, budget or not, digital solutions are usually more expensive than analog solutions. You're just paying more for ease of use and built-in effects in digital solutions. And if a band or an artist can achieve almost similar quality recordings with high-end analog solution, then using a more expensive digital solution would beat the purpose of saving money in the first place.

 

[aragornmustdie]

i've come across several albums that have cracking sound- yes, the stupid distortion thingy. i was very disappointed. it's the rolling stones' rolled gold +, a remastered album- has anyone heard this? the exile on main st album sounds much better and warmer.
another is jimi hendrix' experience album ("experience hendrix"), a remastered compilation album. while the track listing is actually quite good, and some remastered tracks are good, most have this cracks and buzzes in the background. duh!
i love the warmth of the old recordings, though i dont mind some remastered stuff if they're good. led zeppelin's mothership is good. and im quite okay with stevie wonder's number 1 remastered.
oh, and anything produced by eddie kramer is a win. i looove the band of gypsys sound.

 

[ameyer17]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjp /img/forum/go_quote.gif Indeed, I've heard audience recordings of live performances that were eye-poppingly good. Combine a good set of mics, good signal capture gear, and someone who cares, and the results can be simply amazing. Case in point: the recording I'm listening to now, of Mark Knopfler live in Charlotte, NC, in 24-bit/96 kHz FLAC. Unfortunately, great mics have the same "sorry about your wallet" problem that great headphones have... maybe even more so. My eyes just about fell out of my skull when I saw what a matched pair of KM184s cost, and they aren't the most expensive microphones around by any means.

It's all about location.
I've seen good recordings made with a $70 Sony mic and bad recordings made with an expensive Schoeps rig.
Yes, more expensive microphones generally create better recordings, but mic placement tends to have more to do with recording quality than the mic itself.

 

[Sherwood]

Personally, I think you haven't lived until you've heard an old U87 hooked up to a Manley VoxBox.

I love the DIY, laptop-based style of recording, especially considering the fantastic music it has produced, but I defy anyone to make a decent claim that that same music wouldn't have the same soul with a good engineer through top-shelf gear.

Lo-fi has soul, sure, but the soul isn't in the recording techniques, it's in the music. Great music deserves a great recording, period.